Delhi Court March 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 96 results (0.021 seconds)Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Bhagwat Toys Agencies
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]158ITR338(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J.1. This reference relating to the assessment year 1968-69 is the result of an order passed by this court on August 5, 1976, in I.T.C. No. 22 of 1975. The question referred is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the penalty provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not attracted in this case and hence in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessed, who is unfortunately unrepresented before us, had filed a return showing an income of Rs. 2,272. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that a sum of Rs. 13,000 had to be added as income from undisclosed sources. There were two credit entries of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 8,000 concerning which the Income-tax Officer had made additions. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were taken. In connection with the cash credit amount of Rs. 8,000...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Haji Patrawala and Voltas Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC1815Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals, originally Revision Applications to Government of India against order dated 6.6.1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bombay, primarily relate to excisability of what the appellants describe as outer wrapper or outer casing of an Air conditioner and which the Department claims to be a cabinet for Air conditioners. The proceedings against the appellant are the outcome of inspection dated 10.9.1976 made by the Excise authorities in the factory premises of appellant M/s. Moosa Haji Patrawala. During investigation Shri Usman Ghani Moosa Patrawala, Managing partner of appellant M/s. Moosa Haji Patrawala, inter alia, stated that in their classification list dated 7.7.1972 which was approved by the Supdf.Central Excise on 17.8.1972 this appellant had declared the outer wrappers (outer casings) as non-excisable. It was also given out that these were supplied to M/s Voltas Ltd. and M/s National Airco Pvt. Ltd. Statements of employees of the...
Tag this Judgment!Satyadev Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1916Tri(Delhi)
1.The appellants are manufacturers of a chemical, Sodium Bisulphite.One of the uses of this chemical is in the manufacture of 'Analgin' which is a pain relieving drug. It is the claim of the appellants that sodium bisulphite manufactured by them, which falls under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, is eligible for duty exemption as a drug intermediate in terms of Notification No. 55/75, dated 1-3-75 as amended by Notification No. 62/78, dated 1-3-1978. The lower authorities disallowed the claim for exemption. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, by his impugned order dated 1-8-1981, held that the predominant use of sodium bisulphite was for purposes other than manufacture of drugs and that even when it is used in the manufacture of drugs, its use did not seem to be as a drug intermediate. On this basis, he rejected the appeals.2. Against the Order of the Collector (Appeals), the appellants filed a single revision application to the Central Government whic...
Tag this Judgment!Gian Chand Ramji Das Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 33, New Delhi, an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1985]60STC198(Delhi)
Chadha, J. 1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated March 6, 1984 passed by the Tax Assessment Officer, Ward No. 33 levying sales tax at the rate of 10 per cent. on the sale of 'woolen carpet yarn' for the assessment year 1979-80 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. The petitioner, M/s. Gian Chand Ramji Das, is a partnership firm. It is a registered dealer with the Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 33, Delhi, bearing registration No. 15830 under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, and now under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'local Act') and bearing registration No. 3900 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act'). The nature of the business of the petitioner is dealing in raw wool and carpet woolen yarn. 3. The rate of tax is provided under section 4(1) of the local Act reading as f...
Tag this Judgment!Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State and Jai Bhagwan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi483; 28(1985)DLT77; 1985(9)DRJ4; 1985RLR62
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) This and connected matters raise common points of law and will be decided by the same order. Having read in the press about the acquittal of respondent by Mr. P.R. Thakur, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his order of 13th July, 1984 in F.I.R. No. 580/81, State v. Jai Bhagwan under sections 279/338/304-A, Indian Penal Code on the ground that the investigation by police had continued beyond a period of six months without obtaining permission from the Magistrate and thus there was breach of Section 167(5) Criminal Procedure Code . one of us (Sachar J.) in exercise of the High Court power under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code . issued notice to the State as well as the accused Jai Bhagwan. In the connected matters also the Magistrates having acquitted the accused on the same ground Delhi Administration has filed appeals again st the order of release and acquittal and that is why all these matters have been heard together. (2) In the ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ31
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) We have explained in connected case Crl. R. 126/84 the law and have sent back the cases for trial. Though we held that the view of law taken by the Magistrate is erroneous we do not intend sending back this matter for trial. The reason is that this is a charge sheet for attempting to commit suicide under Section 309 Indian Penal Code A young man has allegedly tried to commit suicide presumably because of over emotionalism. It is ironic that Section 309 Indian Penal Code still continues to be on our Penal Code. The result is that a young boy driven to such frustration so as to seek one's own life would have escaped human punishment if he had succeeded but is to be bounded by the police, because attempt has failed. Strange paradox that in the age of votaries of Euthanasia, suicide should be criminally punishable. Instead of the society hanging its head in shame that there should be such social strains that a young man (the hope of tomorrow, should be driven to suic...
Tag this Judgment!inder Mohan Tiwari Vs. Manju Tiwari
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi155; 28(1985)DLT58; 1985(9)DRJ90; 1985RLR513
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) The parties were married on 9-2-1981 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. At that time they were both employed in a private concern, known as A.M.D. Corporation. Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Manju Tiwari, the wife, is four years older to Inder Mohan Tiwari, the husband. (2) According to Inder Mohan Tiwari, as per averments made in the petition for divorce which he later brought under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act on 30-3-1983, he fell victim to tactics and sexual invitations on the part of Manju Tiwari and was hooked into marital ties with her. Her irresistible influence was, according to him, of such nature which rendered him in a position as to not understand her true intentions. This marriage he entered into without the consent and against the wishes of his parents. (3) After the marriage the parties resided at C-50, East of Kailash, New' Delhi till March, 1982. During this period the petitioner alleges that he was subjected to a great deal o...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. H.M.M. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2021Tri(Delhi)
1. By his Order No. 480/Cal/84, dated 10-4-1984, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta decided that screw caps used or Horlicks bottles manufactured by M/s. HMM Limited, Calcutta were very much inputs in terms of Notification No. 201/79-C.E., as well as being components for the manufacture of the finished product. This was contrary to the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, dated 5-1-1984 who observed that screw caps fitted on Horlicks bottles were not components. The Collector (Appeals) held that the packing of the Horlicks in bottles was not complete unless it was capped. Since tariff item IB central excise related to prepared and preserved foods put in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale, the composition of packed Horlick bottles is not just Horlicks powder but also the metal screw caps, bottles, labels, seals, etc. Materials used in bringing a substance up to the excisable stage can safely to considered inputs.2. The learned counsel for the de...
Tag this Judgment!Nayek Associates Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1931Tri(Delhi)
1. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta passed three orders in Appeal Nos. 126/WB of J980, dated 24-3-80; 127/WB of 1980, dated 24-3-80 and Nos. 128-129/WB of 1980, dated 24-3-80. The orders were in respect of the action of the lower authorities, who after approving a classification list dated 29-11-.1977 for mil) board filed by M/s. Nayek Associates Dist. Burd wan and extending concession to the mill board under Notification No. 70/ 76-C.E., dated 16-3-76, wanted to modify that approval. The Assistant Collect or of Central Excise, Burdwan approved the concession on 17-2-78. The Central Excise noticed later that caustic soda had been used in the manufacture of the mill board and that this fact had not been disclosed in the classification list. Furthermore, the factory used jute stalk and paddy straw in the manufacture. The Central Excise felt that the mill board was not eligible to the concession under the notification, and therefore proceedings were initiated to modify...
Tag this Judgment!Liberty Footwear Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2035Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The question arising for determination in the present appeal is whether the product imported by the appellants, namely, Levaform S.I.Silicone Emulsion which is used as mould release agent was correctly classifiable under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as held by the lower authorities or under Heading No. 34.01/07(2) as claimed by the appellants.3. Despite notice of hearing, the appellants were not represented at the hearing. Nor is there on record any communication from them seeking adjournment of the hearing. Therefore, we have heard the Departmental Representative and proceed to dispose of the matter.4. Shri Sunder Rajan, Departmental Representative referred us to...
Tag this Judgment!